The Prohibition of Torture and Ill-treatment in the African Human Rights System: A HANDBOOK FOR VICTIMS AND THEIR ADVOCATES In addition, the Court may also directly receive cases initiated by NGOs enjoying observer status with the African Commission against a State that has made a declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol recognizing the competence of the Court to consider such communications.314 This provision is particularly relevant to cases of torture because it provides a mechanism of speedy judicial relief. Of the ratifying States, only Burkina Faso, Ghana, Malawi, Mali and Tanzania have made this declaration as of November 2013. The usual route to the Court is through the Commission via the referral procedure. Individual communications therefore are generally submitted to the Commission. After the Commission has decided the case, the individual has no standing to submit the case to the Court. Only the Commission may forward it to the Court, as provided for under Rule 118(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure.315 Examples of cases that are referred by the Commission to the Court include those in which the State party has failed to comply with the Commission’s decision, or those involving serious or large-scale human rights violations.316 Although States may also submit cases to the Court, they are likely to refrain from doing so in order to avoid negative publicity or a legally binding negative decision. To date, no such cases have been submitted to the Court. Like the African Commission, the African Court has advisory jurisdiction, in terms adapted from Article 45(3) of the African Charter.317 Advisory opinions may be requested by the following: any AU Member State, any AU organ and ‘any African organisation recognised by the AU’. The latter category includes NGOs that enjoy observer status with the Commission. As of November 2013, the Court has received five requests for advisory opinions: two from States parties and three from NGOs.318 The first request, submitted by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), alleged that the widespread poverty in Nigeria constituted a violation of the African Charter. The request was dismissed for failing to specify which provisions of the African Charter or other international human rights instruments were violated.319 A request from Libya was also struck down320, 314 Ibid., Articles 5(3), 34(6). 315 ACHPR, Rules of Procedure, supra note 43. 316 African Court, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Libya, App. No. 004/2011; African Commission v. Libya, App. No. 002/2013; African Commission v. Kenya, App. No. 006/2012. 317 African Human Rights Court Protocol, supra note 22, Article 4. 318 African Court, Request No 001/2013 by the by the Socio- Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) (6 August 2013); Request No. 001/2012 by the SERAP, (16 May 2012); Request No. 002/2012 by the Pan-African Lawyers’Lawyers’ Union (PALU) and Southern African Litigation Centre (23 November 2012). 319 African Court, Request No 001/2012 by the SERAP (16 May 2012). 320 African Court, Request No 002/2011 by the Great Socialist Peoples’ Libyan Jamahiriya (16 May 2012). 80